p. 5 | A Dialogue

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Sep 1, 1904

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 81, No. 35.

Read the full edition

A Dialogue

PANTHEIST.—Do you not believe that God is everywhere?

CHRISTIAN.—Are you speaking from the standpoint of the pantheist or from the standpoint of the Christian?

P.—What difference does that make?

C.—It makes much difference.

P.—Will you explain yourself?

C.—When the pantheist says, “God is everywhere,” he means that God is an essence pervading everything, and not a personal being with any definite dwelling-place. This is not the teaching of the Bible concerning the omnipresence of the true God.

P.—But if you believe in the omnipresence of God, do you not believe in the immanence of God?

C.—No, not in the sense in which that phrase “the immanence of God” is now used. It is now a technical expression in theological discussion to which a special meaning is attached.

P.—But in professedly Christian writings I have read about the Bible truth of the immanence of God.

C.—Very likely, but I am sorry to say that the essential principles of your pantheistic philosophy seem to have been accepted by some who profess to believe the Bible, and they have adopted certain phrases in which they express their so-called “New Thought.” This is greatly confusing the minds of those who do not carefully distinguish between the truth of the Bible and a speculative explanation of that truth.

P.—Then you do not believe in “the immanent God”?

C.—Most certainly not. But it does not follow that I believe in what some have called “an absentee God.” Neither of these phrases properly expresses the true teaching of the Bible concerning God and creation.

P.—But if you really believe in the omnipresence of God, you surely believe in the universal presence. Does not your Bible say that he is “all and in all”?

C.—Your quotation is not exactly correct. The statement of the Scripture is, “One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.” Your way of quoting the text gives it a pantheistic turn which is not justifiable, although you use words found in the text. Furthermore, that expression, “the universal presence,” like the other expression, “the immanence of God,” has come to have a special meaning in recent discussions of this question, and it is therefore not the equivalent of “the omnipresence of God.” It is the half-way step between the Bible truth and the pantheistic idea that God is simply “a universal Presence.”

P.—Will you state then what you do believe about this matter?

C.—I believe the Bible revelation about God. He is represented as a personal being who has a dwelling-place where he is found in a sense in which he is not found in any other place. At the same time the Bible teaches that he is everywhere present. I accept both of these truths, but I do not dwell exclusively upon the idea of a definite dwelling-place in heaven so as to shut him away from the earth and make him “an absentee God,” neither do I dwell exclusively upon the idea of his omnipresence so as to make him an essence dissipated through all things, simply “a universal Presence.” He who accepts both of these truths and gives to each its due prominence will not regard creation simply as a vast machine under the control of unchangeable laws, apart from the direct control of God, neither will he regard God as simply the Power in nature.

P.—But you will certainly acknowledge that we can see the evidence of the presence of God all about us?

C.—Yes; “the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity.”

P.—And should we not worship God wherever we discern the evidence of his presence?

C.—Your question shows that you do not clearly appreciate the Christian conception of the worship of the God of the Bible. To worship God is to do more than to recognize the evidence of his presence. We should live in the constant recognition of his presence, but in the worship of God we must deal with a personal being in the revelation of himself which he has made in his Son Jesus Christ. “God’s handiwork in nature is not God himself in nature.” “As a personal being, God has revealed himself in his Son.” “Had God desired to be represented as dwelling personally in the things of nature,—in the flower, the tree, the spire of grass,—would not Christ have spoken of this to his disciples when he was on the earth? But never in the teaching of Christ is God thus spoken of.” But Christ said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” In Christ alone is the perfect revelation of God, and if our worship is acceptable to him, it must be directed to a personal God in his dwelling-place in heaven, and it must be offered in and through the merits of our personal mediator, Jesus the Son of God.

P.—Then you worship God as revealed in Christ.

C.—Yes.

P.—Then when you look for Christ in the flesh, Christ in the other man, will you not see him wherever you look, and will you not always be beholding him and worshiping him?

C.—You seem determined to give a pantheistic turn to the teaching of the Bible, but I can not accept your philosophy. In the first place, Christ is not revealed in every man so that I can behold him wherever I look, although he did identify himself with human nature; and in the second place, the only sufficient revelation of God for worship was made in Jesus of Nazareth, and not in any other man, even though Christ does dwell in the heart of that man.

P.—I think I understand your position more clearly as the result of our conversation. If all who claim to believe the Bible should hold to its teachings as you have presented them, I fear that we should not make so much headway in disseminating our doctrine among professedly Christian people.